I currently only train biceps once a week, and am wondering if guys think its worth having some dumbells at home to just do another quick session at sum stage in the week when you cant be arsed goin the gym. Currently train 4 times a week and dont want to go any more often, just talkin about a quick 20min blast on bi's. Anyone think its worth it?

I currently only train biceps once a week, and am wondering if guys think its worth having some dumbells at home to just do another quick session at sum stage in the week when you cant be arsed goin the gym. Currently train 4 times a week and dont want to go any more often, just talkin about a quick 20min blast on bi's. Anyone think its worth it?

Ya, i think you should try hitting each muscle twice a week for a while a few months at least, and see what you think.

Just my opinion that twice a week's more effective, even though i know some say once a week's enough. Coleman, Haney, etc. all used twice weekly.

I feel it is as well. Except when you're trying to lean out and drop muscle. My old roommate is skinny as hell and I got him working parts twice a week and he's gained 6lbs in just over a week and he looks like a whole new man. And that's without all the McDonalds he eats.

Cheers for the replys guys. I find it hard going as a natural to work bodyparts twice a week as i find that i would need to hit the gym 6 times to do it properly and aswell as cardio, and working full time, and i find this a bit draining. Current split is

Cheers for the replys guys. I find it hard going as a natural to work bodyparts twice a week as i find that i would need to hit the gym 6 times to do it properly and aswell as cardio, and working full time, and i find this a bit draining. Current split is

You could do two pushing workout and two pulling workouts. Each workout would be a fullbody workout involving all your pushing muscles one day and all your pulling muscles the other day.

Push Day 1

SquatsLeg PressBench PressFrench Press

Pull Day 1

DeadliftsHamstring CurlsSeated RowsBB Curls

Push Day 2

Hack SquatsMilitary PressDB PressesDips

Pull Day 2

High Pulls/Upright RowsDB RowsPullupsHammer Curls

Thanks, i can see the logic behind that, buut i can only see 2 exercises there for, say biceps, although you are hitting them twice a week, and i currently do 4 exercises (12 sets), allbeit only once a week?

Thanks, i can see the logic behind that, buut i can only see 2 exercises there for, say biceps, although you are hitting them twice a week, and i currently do 4 exercises (12 sets), allbeit only once a week?

That's because you don't get big biceps from doing curls, you get them from moving weight with compound exercises. Deads, squats, rows, pullups, dips..that's how you get big and, in turn, get big biceps.

That's because you don't get big biceps from doing curls, you get them from moving weight with compound exercises. Deads, squats, rows, pullups, dips..that's how you get big and, in turn, get big biceps.

This is debatable to a few but I don't see any guys with great arms over the last 4 or more decades who got big arms without moving serious weight on direct, non-compounds like curls (schwarzenegger, bertil fox), preachers (Scott), cable curls (Coleman) and triceps extensions (oliva, coleman, scott, etc). Even Mariusz, world's strongest man with great arms, does direct arm work, unlike other world's strongest man contestants, and you can see the difference.

Don't worry about the number of exercises done for each muscle-decide on a total number of sets to be done for each muscle, then divide up the sets by the number of exercises done.

Shouldn't be a problem coming up with a 2-day split, there are all sorts of variations-push/pull, upper body/lower+abs, heavy torso muscles/lower body, etc.

The biceps are only a small muscle group so I don't see any problem with training them twice a week. Buying some dumbells to use at home is always a good idea, just in case you can't get to the gym one day. Looking at your current training split, you could always do a few sets for bi's on your shoulder day, without it affecting your other workouts.

This is debatable to a few but I don't see any guys with great arms over the last 4 or more decades who got big arms without moving serious weight on direct, non-compounds like curls (schwarzenegger, bertil fox), preachers (Scott), cable curls (Coleman) and triceps extensions (oliva, coleman, scott, etc). Even Mariusz, world's strongest man with great arms, does direct arm work, unlike other world's strongest man contestants, and you can see the difference.

Don't worry about the number of exercises done for each muscle-decide on a total number of sets to be done for each muscle, then divide up the sets by the number of exercises done.

Shouldn't be a problem coming up with a 2-day split, there are all sorts of variations-push/pull, upper body/lower+abs, heavy torso muscles/lower body, etc.

Training is only a small portion of the reason for growth so just going by someones workout routine does not give you the reason they a great body part. Genetics, nutrition and drugs have a HUGE impact on specific muscle development. Most times they are pre-disposed to having, say, a big bicep peak so, in turn, they continue to build it up since it's a signature body part.

Mariusz is a terrible example, the man has built his physique by lifting weight, plain and simple. Lots of weight, in all different positions, from all different angles. Sure, a trainin video or the fitshow may showing him doing isolation exercises but the man has built his physique from Strongman.

Lastly, when giving advice about growing bodyparts, you have to let people know that the easiest way to grow one muscle group is to grow them all. Doing squats increases testosterone and GH levels which will build bigger bis and tris.

Training is only a small portion of the reason for growth so just going by someones workout routine does not give you the reason they a great body part. Genetics, nutrition and drugs have a HUGE impact on specific muscle development. Most times they are pre-disposed to having, say, a big bicep peak so, in turn, they continue to build it up since it's a signature body part.

Mariusz is a terrible example, the man has built his physique by lifting weight, plain and simple. Lots of weight, in all different positions, from all different angles. Sure, a trainin video or the fitshow may showing him doing isolation exercises but the man has built his physique from Strongman.

Lastly, when giving advice about growing bodyparts, you have to let people know that the easiest way to grow one muscle group is to grow them all. Doing squats increases testosterone and GH levels which will build bigger bis and tris.

That whole squat = overall growth theory has been propogated for decades, with no proof. It might help a little but I don't believe it for a second even though i'm a natural squatter. Did very little by itself for the upper body, from my experience.

How much training enters into growth is not something you can dismiss as if you have the answer. I'd say it matters alot as proven by the BBs who train hard, while you have no proof to the contrary that will stick. Anyway the point is moot: whatever amount training matters, and i'd say for growth quite a bit, how one trains does matter.

Mariusz is an excellent example that supports my point. He's doing loads of direct heavy work. He's not just doing it for the hell of it. All listed on his site, i've posted links here previously. Whereas you're speculating as to how he got to where he has.

Just to confirm: all the top guys with great arms have done loads of heavy direct work, completely contrary to your theory. This is the only thing that is sure.

That whole squat = overall growth theory has been propogated for decades, with no proof. It might help a little but I don't believe it for a second even though i'm a natural squatter. Did very little by itself for the upper body, from my experience.

How much training enters into growth is not something you can dismiss as if you have the answer. I'd say it matters alot as proven by the BBs who train hard, while you have no proof to the contrary that will stick. Anyway the point is moot: whatever amount training matters, and i'd say for growth quite a bit, how one trains does matter.

Mariusz is an excellent example that supports my point. He's doing loads of direct heavy work. He's not just doing it for the hell of it. All listed on his site, i've posted links here previously. Whereas you're speculating as to how he got to where he has.

Just to confirm: all the top guys with great arms have done loads of heavy direct work, completely contrary to your theory. This is the only thing that is sure.

Finally, some debate.

I do agree that some of the stuff I spew is not founded on science but most has some research behind it that I have read over the years. I read a lot of journals and analayze a lot of studies to help cut through the bullshit.

The Squat/growth theory is relatively pretty simple. You can lift heavy loads while squatting and heavy loads but the body under stress, stress triggers a defensive reaction in the body (in this case muscle growth) Since squatting is one the of heaviest exercises you can do, it primes your body for handling heavy stresses (weights).

True, the training point is moot but for a beginner I'd make sure they have they're nutrition (and/or supplementation) down before they worry about the gun show. I've seen WAY too many clients and gym members lift the same weights at the gym year after year (even experimenting with different workouts) while not focusing on the nutritional aspect and end up making little/no gains. You can' grow muscle out of nothing, you need the calories so that's always the first thing I make sure of.

As for mariuz, he's not a BB so he's a stange example but still, he lifts to accomplish lifting goals, whilst BB's lift to accomplish physque-oriented goals. His workout REVOLVE around compound/lower body/full body lifts. He does some traditional BB lifts and Stongman lifts on the same day. I'd say that's not a ton of direct bicep work

I do agree that some of the stuff I spew is not founded on science but most has some research behind it that I have read over the years. I read a lot of journals and analayze a lot of studies to help cut through the bullshit.

The Squat/growth theory is relatively pretty simple. You can lift heavy loads while squatting and heavy loads but the body under stress, stress triggers a defensive reaction in the body (in this case muscle growth) Since squatting is one the of heaviest exercises you can do, it primes your body for handling heavy stresses (weights).

True, the training point is moot but for a beginner I'd make sure they have they're nutrition (and/or supplementation) down before they worry about the gun show. I've seen WAY too many clients and gym members lift the same weights at the gym year after year (even experimenting with different workouts) while not focusing on the nutritional aspect and end up making little/no gains. You can' grow muscle out of nothing, you need the calories so that's always the first thing I make sure of.

As for mariuz, he's not a BB so he's a stange example but still, he lifts to accomplish lifting goals, whilst BB's lift to accomplish physque-oriented goals. His workout REVOLVE around compound/lower body/full body lifts. He does some traditional BB lifts and Stongman lifts on the same day. I'd say that's not a ton of direct bicep work

-I first read of the squat theory in the early 70s. Nothing i've seen since tells me it's the most important thing when it comes to development of secondary muscles. A great great overall condiitoner, yes which is not the same. Nothing in the theory proves it either.

-As far as studies, it's like quoting the bible, there are all sorts of studies out there, much of it contradictory.

-Mariusz is an excellent example precisely because he's not technically a BB. Unlike other strongmen, he's the one who includes BB and heavy direct work, check his site. This isn't speculation; you're wrong on this, it's fact. Heavy curls, extensions and pushdowns. Because of it, his arms are much better than most WSM guys who clearly follow the prescription of indirect-only work.

-Still waiting for any proof of a great bodybuilder over the last 40 years with great arms without intense direct arm work...well?

Mariusz training:Wednesday:He started with push jerks, working up to 405 for a very easy and fast two reps. He then squatted, high bar, Olympic style up to two easy, quick sets of 585 for three reps. He then did seated dumbell presses with us; 120 pounds, for ten repetitions, for five sets. I must inform you that this workout was all being done at a very fast pace. Next was curls, five sets of ten reps done on a straight bar with 135, then twenty minutes straight of abdominal work. Steve Macdonald and I were huffing and puffing trying to keep up with the weights used and the vigorous pace being set by the champ.

Mariusz training:Wednesday:He started with push jerks, working up to 405 for a very easy and fast two reps. He then squatted, high bar, Olympic style up to two easy, quick sets of 585 for three reps. He then did seated dumbell presses with us; 120 pounds, for ten repetitions, for five sets. I must inform you that this workout was all being done at a very fast pace. Next was curls, five sets of ten reps done on a straight bar with 135, then twenty minutes straight of abdominal work. Steve Macdonald and I were huffing and puffing trying to keep up with the weights used and the vigorous pace being set by the champ.

As far as Mariusz goes, I agreed with you on his Traditional BB exercises and how he does that along with stongman lifts but you have to concede that he not only has the best arms (best meaning most defined?) but he has the most BB-like body of all the top strongman. He looks like a bodybuilder. Every part of him. So, is that due to his BB-style workouts, his genetics or heavy drug use?